Thanks so much for the detailed review! I've implemented all your suggestions. I did want to respond to a couple of points, below:

kentsmith9 wrote:I think it would be good to add a very short section (one or two sentences) after the "Incorrect edits are..." section.

== Overall editing guidelines ==Some editors have not had an opportunity to read through the editing procedures discussed in the Waze Map Editor documentation. In many cases, that documentation helps new editors much more than they realize. Be sure to check it out.

kentsmith9 wrote:Each section should link back to the WME manual or applicable style guide page that gives the detailed guidance for that issue. The basic information would be on this page and the details would be left to the manual or style guide. That would:

enable this page to be shorter and not look so intimidating

prevent maintenance of data in two different places if (when) it changes

There's now a "Further reading" section at the end of the article, with links to all five of the introductory wiki articles on editing of which I'm aware. Also some links to the forum. I adapted this from the page for Area Managers.

I'll confess to some concern that, from a beginner's perspective, the Waze wiki may seem encyclopedic rather than tutorial in both treatment and organization. For example, if I go to the Road types (USA) Ramp article, I see many things that I still do not understand, such as a J-turn (which the article helpfully explains is an RCUT/"Superstreet"). Of course I can find out what this is quickly, but the point is that parts of our documentation aren't especially tutorial in nature.

(It's an interesting aside that Wikipedia is of course intended as an online encyclopedia. So perhaps it is natural that any documentation system based on their engine might tend towards an encyclopedic rather than tutorial presentation.)

So, in writing an article explicitly oriented towards beginners making beginner mistakes, I felt that information should be immediately accessible as well as tutorial in scope. In some cases that meant reiterating information available in other articles. This was deliberate.

That being said, I'm in complete agreement that links to other documentation definitely belong throughout this article. I've been adding them as I go, and welcome help! I also plan to keep adding images as I come across good candidates.

Looks good to me. I'm not sure quite so many instances of the message are necessary but perhaps it's appropriate given how this page will get used. But, shouldn't the words "don't panic" be printed in large, friendly letters?

Thanks so much! In principle I'm delighted for folks to improve it, and that is after all the idea of a wiki. I'm also aware that my writing is wordy. I can't help it, it's like I learned to write (poorly) in the mid 1800's, though I often come back later and and see a zillion ways to tighten my prose.

My intent in this article diverges somewhat from a standard wiki approach that aggressively replaces text with links. I wanted this article to be a "one-stop shop" to a greater extent than the typical article. Many of the intended readers will arrive here not because they want to know something and are willing to keep following links until they understand it, but rather because someone told them they screwed up and they are reluctantly trying to find out how. So, I'd discourage tightening it in such a way that it requires readers to follow more links to get a satisfactory answer to that question.

Tell you what, why not pick what you consider to be the most worthwhile item to edit, have at it, and let me know when you're done. If we're on the same page (no pun intended) you'll have my unqualified blessing, otherwise we can discuss which is the best way to go

Thanks, this is useful. I can see your main concern appears to involve my tone, which can be a bit strong at times. I do want to keep readers awake and engaged, but more than that, I'm trying to disrupt habits of thought. A stronger tone can help accomplish that. This is also a departure from the Wikipedia approach, which aims for an even tone and neutral language, and rightly so for that application.

So I don't mind making readers a little bit uncomfortable, but definitely not at the cost of making them feel unwelcome. Put another way, I want the article to be challenging, but never officious, pedantic or patronizing.

Tell you what, I'll review the article and see what I can do. Our styles are different enough it may be better for me to look into this just for the sake of uniformity.

If you have any other specific or general concerns please feel free to bring them up!

Looking again at the proposed approach of changing the article, it looks like one of the primary goals is to change the "wrong" headings to "right" headings. For example, if the "Incorrect edits" article currently lists:

Although I agree this is a friendlier approach, I feel pretty strongly that it sacrifices the clarity necessary for an article whose readers have arrived with one question: "tell me what I did wrong and why the editing community responded like it did". The main point of this article is to answer that question. Headings that talk about doing things right are great and appropriate in other articles in the wiki, but this is the one place I believe it's better to talk about doing things wrong.

It is fantastic that this could be a useful article for editors who haven't yet been asked to read it! But they are not the primary target audience. So I would propose to retain the negative headings.

[EDIT: Oops, crossed posts! Thanks again for the suggestions and understanding!]

Another editor recently added the following recommendation to the "incorrect edits" wiki article:

Tip: Editors are strongly encouraged to download & install the Waze Validator Plugin. This is a VERY helpful tool for identifying problems and even offers advice how to fix them.

On the whole I lean in favor of this new addition. But, I believe I've heard some senior editors murmur that beginners (the target audience for this article) may in fact be slightly more dangerous when armed with scripts -- even one as well done as Validator.

If anyone has concerns about this new addition please speak up. I'm inclined to leave the new language in place but would welcome perspectives.

Perhaps I will move and modify the tip somewhat to suggest Validator only as one becomes more comfortable with WME. It feels like overload for a brand-new editor to be told to install optional third-party scripts from day one...